Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this thesis is to provide an alternative theory of how wh-expressions are interpreted. I propose that French wh-words are interpreted through an A-bar binding relation subject to a modified Generalized Binding Theory (cf. Aoun, 1985; henceforth GBT) which is an LF module of the Minimalist Framework (Chomsky, 1995). Among the four interrogative strategies available in French, it will be demonstrated that wh-clefts and wh-in-situ pattern together as they can only be used in strongly presupposed contexts unlike reinforced interrogatives and inversion+wh-fronting. French exhibits a puzzle in the domain of Wh/QP interaction. Standard analyses predict an ambiguity/non-ambiguity contrast depending on the c-command relation between the wh-word and the QP (May, 1985, etc.). Crucially, a wh-in-situ c-commanded by a universal QP (among other A'-elements) lacks a non-echo interpretation; only an echo reading is available. Furthermore, a wh-in-situ within an embedded clause only has an echo reading. Contrastively, an overtly moved wh-word can always be interpreted as non-echo regardless of an intervening A'- element or a clause boundary. I argue that French in-situ facts can be captured by the GBT. I propose that wh-words are A'-anaphors that receive an interrogative interpretation by being bound to a null Q operator (C°). This binding relation is subject to locality conditions. First, the lack of a non-echo reading of a wh-in-situ c-commanded by a QP is a violation of a Specified Antecedent Condition which requires an A'-anaphor to be bound by the closest potential antecedent. Second, the matrix clause restriction is captured by a Matrix Clause Condition requiring an A'-anaphor to be bound within its minimal finite clause. Under minimalist views of movement, a strong [wh] feature of French null Q attracts a wh-word to raise overtly and adjoin to the root. Because overtly moved whwords enter LF in the most local binding relation possible with the null Q (spec-head), they may always be interpreted as non-echo. Lastly, I adopt Chierchia's (1993) Weak Crossover (WCO) analysis of Wh/QP interaction to capture the ambiguity/non-ambiguity contrast in French overt syntax. The WCO approach further supports our proposals concerning the composition of French wh-words; they are made up of a [wh] feature and an A'-anaphoric pronominal element, pro.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".